Murari Sharma: Rising Bigotry is Worrying

An Australian citizen, living in New Zealand, massacred 50 people in two mosques of Christchurch. Prime Minister Jacinda Ardern rose to the occasion, seldom equaled by other leaders. While bigotry has fortunately been going down in several countries, it has been rising in a number of Western and Islamic countries. That is deeply worrying.

Hate crimes have increased in the United States, United Kingdom, the European continent, Australia and have now reached New Zealand. For instance, in the United States, religion-based hate crimes have shot up by 23 percent and anti-Jewish crimes by 37 percent after 2016, under President Donald Trump.   

In England and Wales, the United Kingdom, hate crimes have edged up by 17 percent after the British referendum over leaving the European Union in 2016. In the wake of the Christchurch shooting, they have skyrocketed by more than 500 percent.  Prime Minister Teresa May, who introduced the policy of hostile environment when she was home secretary, and her Tory Brexiteer, who support Brexit with a dose of xenophobia, have fueled the fire of racism. 

Elsewhere in Europe, Mary Le Pen of France has obtained national prominence riding the tiger of racism and xenophobia. Leaders in Hungary, Poland, and the Czech Republic have also hidden their authoritarian impulse behind xenophobia. 

For some time, Australia has been notorious for its intolerance towards migrants and minorities, including asylum seekers. Disgusted by the racist rhetoric of a senator, even a White teenager broke an egg on his head, in front of cameras. 

But Ardern has proved herself a different brand of leaders, in sharp contrast to other Western counterparts that have presided over similar massacres.  Quickly and forcefully, she denounced the slaughter in Christchurch, demonstrated solidarity with the victims and banned the military-grade sub-automatic guns, something the United States should have long done to stop the recurrent gun crimes across the land.

When Trump asked Ardern what he could do to support her, she said he should send sympathy and love to Muslim communities, in an apparent reference to his anti-Muslim policies. A polite but potent punch in Trump’s gut.

Although data are not available, anecdotal evidence suggests that religion-based bigotry has increased in Muslim countries as well. For example, the sizable non-Muslim population in Pakistan at the time of India’s partition in 1947 has dwindled into insignificance, in sharp contrast to the accelerated the rise in the Muslim population in India. In the Middle East, non-Muslims have fled their countries and taken refuge elsewhere. In many Islamic countries, laws officially sanction religion-based discrimination.

Evidently, there is a correlation between the rise of hate crimes and rise of the immigrant population through labor import and asylum in Western countries and through labor-import in Muslim countries. If a country needs additional human resources to keep its economy chugging along or provides refuge on humanitarian grounds, it also must offer equal rights and equal treatment of minorities.   

Not all complaints about hate crimes are created equal, however. For instance, anti-Semitism and Islamophobia have existed in several Western countries but they have been qualitatively different in their origin and virility. In my understanding, which might be faulty, anti-Semitism has mostly come from jealousy whereas Islamophobia from intolerance. Besides, anti-Semitism has become more visible due to its conflation with the opposition to the policies of the Israeli government. 

Although we understand that not all Jews are rich or crooked, history and culture have created a tilted perception about them. For a reference, all you have to do is read Shakespeare’s Merchant of Venice. But jealousy is not the same as intolerance, though both may manifest in discrimination. Necessary is a similar nuance between anti-Semitism, which is wrong, and opposition to Israeli government policies, which is legitimate in free societies. 

What has brought about this increased racism in both the Western and Muslim worlds? First and foremost, politics has become value-free. Gone are the days when different lofty political ideologies and worldviews rooted politics. Gaining and retaining power by hook or by crook has become the main objective of politics. If minority-bashing and xenophobia help, they are a fair game. Increased interaction between groups has also given the prejudiced people the opportunity to express their sentiments.   

Over the last few years, a number of bright spots for race and religion relations have also emerged. For instance, in Rwanda, as my friends tell me, the Hutus and Tutsis have put the age-old rancor and the recent genocide behind and moved on, logging unprecedented economic growth and social understanding. In Nepal and India, the old walls of prejudice have been crumbling as their governments have been embracing more inclusive policies to accommodate minorities in all aspects of politics and government.  

However, overall, the tide of bigotry has risen, which is deeply worrying. To reverse this tide, we need several Jacinda Arderns and no more Christchurch incidents. I am afraid that, if hate crimes continue to rise in Western countries that directly or indirectly control international politics and economy, even those nations where racism is on the wane could turn back. The impulse to turn back would be stronger in countries like Nepal where inclusiveness has only recently entered public conscience. 




Murari Sharma: An inward-looking America is bad for America and the world

More than 600,000 Rohingya refugees have fled Myanmar, to Bangladesh, in recent months. This number is steadily rising towards a million. If President Donald Trump had not withdrawn the United States from the world, the generals in Naypyidaw probably would not have ordered the ethnic cleansing of Muslims in Rakhine State.

Some American leaders and celebrities have declared President Trump unfit for his office. Some psychologist and mental health experts have doubted his fitness as well. The Nobel Prize-winning economist Joseph Stieglitz says Trump “has fascist tendencies.” These things are for the American people to decide. 

I respect the American people’s decision. So I am interested only in how Trump’s policy and personality have been affecting the United States and the rest of the world, including Nepal.   

Donald Trump ran on the nationalist, anti-trade, and anti-regional arrangement agenda and won the election. Naturally, nationalists in general and far-right nationalists, in particular, have felt that his election has mainstreamed their own beliefs. Trump is not one of the mainstream internationalist Republicans, who believe in free trade. And he sees regional groupings and their collective strength to bargain antithetical to US interest.

His personality is volatile, impulsive, and unpredictable. His threat to North Korea or his urge to investigate Hillary Clinton’s already investigated emails, his tweets at 3 am, his Access Hollywood tape, his call on Russia to hack Clinton’s emails, his trashing of minority judges because they decided against him in court cases, etc. do not speak for his trust and dependability. 

Already, Trump’s policies and personality have produced some negative impacts for him, the United States, and the rest of the world. For instance, his military general has said he would not follow Trump’s ‘illegal order.’ His attorney-general has said cannot abide by his urge to investigate his opponent. Such cases put Trump’s command and control in doubt.  

The United States has already suffered some significant setbacks on the world stage. For instance, he withdrew the United from the Paris climate change agreement, and China and Europe stepped in.  Washington has lost the opportunity to lead and shape the climate change agenda, and it might miss the climate-friendly technology gravy train.  

Likewise, President Trump withdrew from the Transpacific (trade) Partnership negotiations, but the other countries in the region have decided to move forward with the negotiation without the United States. Washington has effectively ceded the leadership of and influence in the region to China. 

Citing that the agency was anti-Israel, Trump withdrew the United States from UNESCO even though it had rejoined the agency after staying out for several years. The agency will continue criticizing Tel Aviv, now without any moderation from the United States. 

Trump has threatened to pull out of the North American Free Trade Agreement if other members do not agree to amend it to America’s advantage. He has issued similar threats to several other countries. These countries will move on without the United States because they can do it now.

The United States is a major economic player, but it is not as indispensable now as it was 30 years ago. For example, according to WTO, the European Union was collectively the largest trading bloc in 2016 with the trade volume (export+import) of 3,821 billion dollars, followed by the United States 3,706 billion, and China 3,685 billion. China and Japan together posted 4,937 billion dollars. 

Similarly, while the US remains the foremost technological and financial powerhouse, other countries have been catching up and reducing US leverage. China is charging ahead in green technology. America is near the bottom in the industry’s share of GDP. London has superseded New York as the largest financial center.

During President Trump’s recent visit to Asia, the relatively reduced stature of the United States was visible. For instance, Japan and South Korea — where Trump’s trust rating is 17 and 24 percent, almost one-third of his predecessor — did not provide many trade concessions to oblige him. It is yet to be seen whether they buy American weapons in the volume Trump wants. 

China treated Trump nicely for not raising human rights issues and keeping at bay the dumping and currency manipulation issues, which he had raised repeatedly during his presidential campaign. It signed a few relatively minor trade deals. Beyond that, there was nothing to write home about. 

In Vietnam, the APEC countries rebuffed Trump’s single-minded emphasis on bilateral trade and decided to move ahead with the TPP without the United States. In the group photo, Trump was made to stand in the second row, slightly to one side.

In the Philippines, Trump endorsed his equally volatile counterpart, Rodrigo Duterte, who has been killing anyone suspected of being involved in drugs, blatantly violating human rights and the due process of law. And yet, Duterte made his soft corner for China clear as soon as Trump left Manila.

While there is nothing wrong for a leader to promote his country’s national interest, the problem is with the identification of such interest.  The Trump brand fails to recognize the fundamental logic that Winston Churchill had recognized long ago: With power comes resources and responsibility. If you do not have one, you will not have the other either. Paul Kennedy has asserted that the empires of yore rose and fell with their command over resources.

For instance, the industrial revolution gave Britain resources and power to bring much of the world under its control. When Britain was stretched thin, the resource-rich United States powered ahead. The colossal loss it suffered in World War I and II and in the independence of its colonies relegated Britain to the second, even third-rate power. 

If the Trump brand of Make America Great Again succeeds, the United States is likely to follow the British trajectory. To prevent such a course, the United States needs to continue building alliances to share the cost and maximize benefits for its friends and allies around the world.

That brings me to Myanmar. The Myanmar military systematically persecuted the Rohingyas, the Bengali Muslim minority, and the Nobel Prize-winning foreign minister Aung San Suu Kyi did not stop them. She even sought to brush the issue under the carpet, including in her speech at the UN General Assembly in September this year.  

If the Myanmar generals had not witnessed the United States abdicating its global leadership, they would have thought twice before ordering the ethnic cleansing, thanks to the UN provision for humanitarian intervention in cases of extreme human rights violation. To be sure, the provision has been inconsistently implemented. But the mere possibility of it could have restrained the generals.  

As for Nepal, the outcome has been mixed in the past under Republican and Democratic presidents. For example, President Johnson, a Democrat, and President Reagan, a Republican, welcomed King Mahendra and Birendra in America, respectively. Often Republican presidents have been more liberal in providing aid and trade concessions.

But President Trump is different. He wants to cut aid, reduce trade concessions, terminate the Temporary Protection Status for thousands of Nepalis living in the United States, and end the diversity visa program. So, the prospects under Trump are not bright for Nepal. I will be happy if proven wrong.